I would like to ask the photographer, David: What was your intention in the photograph? What kinds of feelings or thoughts were you wanting to pass along?

Fro instance - - There are but two main elements in the photo. Each has a powerful, and yet very different influence on the communication. Is it about what the ground is saying, or is it about what the sky is saying? Which is dominant, if any? What's the intended relationship?

It's hard to go to Sedona and not see eminently photographical scenes. Arizona Highways images abound, right? But I am mindful that Sedona is one of millions of places that have been photographed to death. How do you take a successful photo, that works and yet is unique under those conditions? That was what I was considering all week. The red rock icons are indeed powerful, but what I arrived at was the unique feature of the area was the sky and it was ever changing. Then you have those moments when the low angle of light causes the colors to pop. So my intention was to marry those features, the land, the sky, and the light. Cliche? The land is recognizable to anyone who has visited Sedona and so, in my view, really didn't need emphasis, but when those clouds started coming in before sunset I was getting excited because I wanted to show that juxtaposition of sky and land in that fantastic light, because to me, that's a tension that creates the magic of Sedona. Now a lot of this is reconstructionist reflection, but I think it is true. As I look back at the other frames from that trip, this is what I was trying to capture.The comments and discussion here have been very helpful and I think it is important to "get it right" and like the old saying, the devil is in the details. I like the red, blue and green combinations you see so often in southwestern photographs. I wonder if that has anything to do with the RGB receptors we have in our retinas?Anyway, hope this doesn't sound like BS. I appreciate your question making me think about these things as I am often "in the moment" and probably shoot very intuitively.

In this particular instance, after isolating just the sky, I used SEP2 to create a B&W layer (full dynamic, smooth). I changed the blend to Luminosity and lowered the opactiy to 67%. To counter some of the grain created by SEP2, I did a noise reduction using "despeckle" only. Next, on a copy of the B&W sky layer I used a blend mode of "screen" at 17%, flattened and it was finished. I am using CS6 but I think all these are available in LR4. If you don't have SEP/SEP2, make a copy of the original, use the B&W conversion adjustment and use that for your blend layer. I tend to add a bit more contrast when doing it by that method, but in the end, it's pretty close to the same.

I take it SEP and SEP2 are filters? I use CS6, too. I am with you on the luminosity blend and the despeckle, but I don't get the screen part. I could deconstruct this if Slobodan hasn't had enough coffee to stay in the discussion

I take it SEP and SEP2 are filters? I use CS6, too. I am with you on the luminosity blend and the despeckle, but I don't get the screen part. I could deconstruct this if Slobodan hasn't had enough coffee to stay in the discussion

You guys are fantastic.

Sorry - Silver Efex Pro or Pro2. The SEP layer while giving more structure to the clouds and creating a better separation of tonal range, tended to go to dark in the shadows (underneath sides of the clouds). Duplicating this SEP layer with the blend set to screen (17% - low opacity) allowed the darker tones to retain their color but blend more evenly and lighten just enough to get (to me) a fuller luminence in the lighter areas of the clouds.

Sorry - Silver Efex Pro or Pro2. The SEP layer while giving more structure to the clouds and creating a better separation of tonal range, tended to go to dark in the shadows (underneath sides of the clouds). Duplicating this SEP layer with the blend set to screen (17% - low opacity) allowed the darker tones to retain their color but blend more evenly and lighten just enough to get (to me) a fuller luminence in the lighter areas of the clouds.

Poor Slobodan's head will really explode now.

AHHHH! I have used the luminosity technique with SEP2, but you're right, often the bottom of the clouds does go black. I will have to play with the screen adaptation to compensate. Very useful insight. Thanks!

It's hard to go to Sedona and not see eminently photographical scenes. Arizona Highways images abound, right? But I am mindful that Sedona is one of millions of places that have been photographed to death. How do you take a successful photo, that works and yet is unique under those conditions? That was what I was considering all week. The red rock icons are indeed powerful, but what I arrived at was the unique feature of the area was the sky and it was ever changing. Then you have those moments when the low angle of light causes the colors to pop. So my intention was to marry those features, the land, the sky, and the light. Cliche? The land is recognizable to anyone who has visited Sedona and so, in my view, really didn't need emphasis, but when those clouds started coming in before sunset I was getting excited because I wanted to show that juxtaposition of sky and land in that fantastic light, because to me, that's a tension that creates the magic of Sedona. Now a lot of this is reconstructionist reflection, but I think it is true. As I look back at the other frames from that trip, this is what I was trying to capture.The comments and discussion here have been very helpful and I think it is important to "get it right" and like the old saying, the devil is in the details. I like the red, blue and green combinations you see so often in southwestern photographs. I wonder if that has anything to do with the RGB receptors we have in our retinas?Anyway, hope this doesn't sound like BS. I appreciate your question making me think about these things as I am often "in the moment" and probably shoot very intuitively.

Be assured that such sincere discussion of photography is never BS.

First, as to specific adjustments of knobs and levers, I can't say. That's not my concern. I am happy enough to know that you will get them adjusted to suit you. My main concern was that you are getting your self into the photograph. Your values, your ideals, your feelings or whatever makes you pick up a camera. If you get a lot of YOU into it, it will all be fine in the end. That's what we all want to see - - the photographer's ideal! We have all seen the mountain, now we want to see YOU through the mountain.

Your explanation was excellent. We all have to "reconstruct" like that from time to time, so have no worry about that. And I got it very clearly. So now it's just to get that feeling expressed in the photo. Here's a thought. The rocks don't move, the sky does. We all might have seen that rock, but have any of us seen that sky? I don't mean a sky like it, I mean THAT sky. No, we haven't. So, you are going to show us how THAT sky worked against the land to give you THAT feeling. In this sense (being used as an example), maybe the rocks can be "under emphasized" subtly as the sky is over emphasized? This is more a feel than any specific advice to move a lever this way or that. You will know when you have it. I would have no way to know, because the truth of the moment is in you.

I wonder---do you print these (variations) out to look at as photographs, or do you only look at them on screen? This may not apply to you at all, but I HAVE to print the variations out to truly see them. I don't mean the final size if you intended it large. But to have a stack of photographs in hand that you can sit with, ponder, examine, critique AWAY from the computer can be very valuable. I print a lot of stuff at about 5 x 7, which is just right for sitting in my easy chair and thinking about them for a few days.

Thanks again for revealing your intention so clearly. It's a fun process and you have a wonderful photograph to play with.

I like your image, but on my non-calibrated macbook, the upper 1/3 (dark sky) seems somewhat noisy? posterized? Dirty? Not sure. Am I the only one thinking this?

-h

I don't see posterization on my calibrated monitor, but now I'm worried There is a graininess that is contributed (I think) by the SEP2 luminosity layer (see Chrisc's comments above) that I did not remove, but there is also some rain or downward streaks that are present in the raw image. At first they annoyed me, but then, they're real so I didn't diddle them out. Don't know if this is what you're seeing but you may not be the only one. Key part of the definition is "usually" old

I wonder---do you print these (variations) out to look at as photographs, or do you only look at them on screen? This may not apply to you at all, but I HAVE to print the variations out to truly see them. I don't mean the final size if you intended it large. But to have a stack of photographs in hand that you can sit with, ponder, examine, critique AWAY from the computer can be very valuable. I print a lot of stuff at about 5 x 7, which is just right for sitting in my easy chair and thinking about them for a few days.

Thanks again for revealing your intention so clearly. It's a fun process and you have a wonderful photograph to play with.

Printing. That's a can of worms. Currently I do not print at home. I use a lab. I will have to see if there is a forum on printing, but honestly, I've been reluctant to get involved because it is itself an arcane art form.I appreciate the challenging questions and the encouragement. Geez, I better go to work!

Printing. That's a can of worms. Currently I do not print at home. I use a lab. I will have to see if there is a forum on printing, but honestly, I've been reluctant to get involved because it is itself an arcane art form.I appreciate the challenging questions and the encouragement. Geez, I better go to work!

I see. Well, maybe even a simple printer for "editing" purposes would be useful? I don't know how each person works. It was just a method to pass on as a suggestion.

I thought, according to you, everything and anything coming out of a camera is "just/only a photograph," "a truth all on its own," worth showing to the world.

"it's not 'about nothing' or 'about something," you said.

Now you are telling us it is, after all, about something: the photographer's idea!

How novel!

Slob,

One of the things that often happens when people read for the purpose of finding an insult to make, instead of reading for the purpose of trying to get the writer's point, is that they make a fool of themselves for not having read carefully. When you swing for the fences, you kind of have to hit the ball, in other words.

You aren't about the photography, you are about the hounding of people to show you are some kind of "heavy weight" I think it was called. So, I have been generally ignoring you and Hef's and Grumpy's persistent attempts at diverting the forum into your locker room. I find it pathetic in general. I can only imagine it is about being starved for attention, in which case my prescription is, post some photographs, or in some way contribute something about photography.

Had you given even modest care to understand my point to the other poster about "only photographs," you would have read this sentence which I quote here: "It means the product can be "the photograph" itself, of itself, and by itself with no named reference within. The 'thing' then, doesn't have to be a mountain, car, cabbie, door or dog, but it's "just a photograph." Neither does that mean it is "nothing." It is obviously something. " I bolded the "can be" for the obvious reason that "can be" doesn't mean "must be." Photographs can be many things, that was one of them. I feel comfortable with what I wrote and the intention behind it. I write fast though, and I try to be spontaneous. That means I will make mistakes from time to time, and I readily admit it. I might go through my own posts and find several right now. Usually, it's nothing serious. But I will say this, I don't write as though it is being engraved on a granite stone. Feel free though to spend your day looking through it to find whatever inconsistencies you enjoy. It's easier than taking photographs, that's for sure.

So let's be clear now. Do you see your important role here as being the one to pour over texts looking for some word to quibble about in an amazing "gotcha" moment?